When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On February 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 05:15, at Drown-si C, at Drown-si C, at the third water surface room, the victim E (n, 19 years of age) was diving to report the fact that the victim E (n, 19 years of age) was locked; (b) was taken back by the victim’s side; and (c) was able to fit the victim’s face.

Accordingly, the Defendant committed indecent acts against the victim in a state of humping to resist.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and F;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 299 and 298 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of fines (in cases where the accused denies the crime and has not yet been recovered from damage, considering the fact that the accused is the first offender, etc.);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 16 (2) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes Committed to Order;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion on the punishment, etc. of sexual assault crimes exempt from disclosure and notification of personal information, the proviso to Article 49(1) and the proviso to Article 50(1) of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse (the disclosure and notification of personal information is not made in consideration of the initial crime, family relationship, and the previous circumstances). The defendant and his/her defense counsel did not have the intention of quasi-indecent act, and the defendant did not have the intention of quasi-indecent act, and the E did not have the condition of non-indecent act at the time. Furthermore

The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., victim E, consistently from the investigative agency to this court, and the victim E, up to the time until after the defendant saw himself as a male-child room, had the remainder of the defendant misunderstanding the defendant as a male-child room, and had the male-child room look back to the same part of the defendant's family room, with the knowledge that he was not a male-child room, and then the person who was faced with him.